Cookies on our website

We use cookies on this website, mainly to provide a secure browsing experience but also to collect statistics on how the website is used. You can find out more about the cookies we set, the information we store and how we use it on the cookies page.

Continue

PCRN

Pre-Christian Religions of the North: Sources

Menu Search
○. Pre-Christian Religions of the North: Sources 5. Review process in the database

5. Review process in the database

This is not currently part of the peer-reviewed material of the project. Do not cite as a research publication.

The review process for the database is currently in development. The following components are envisaged:

1. Review commentary facility: this is a table which can link to entries in the database with a field for comments, the reviewer’s name, a recommendation (revise, reject, publish, etc.) and, importantly, visibility options (visible to reviewer only (notes), visible to editor(s), visible to author, visible to all). Currently mostly implemented, using the ‘review’ table.

2. Review request facility: a table (perhaps also ‘review’ table) which allows authors to submit a work for review and/or editors to request a review from a particular reviewer.

3. Review report facilities for relevant tables (sources, narratives, mss, etc.), including:

  • Items started by user and unreviewed;
  • Items submitted by user for review;
  • Reviews of items submitted;
  • Items with reviews requested by user;
  • Responses to reviews by user, etc.
The process would probably work like this:
  1. Contributor enters data, links and content;
  2. Contributor finalises work and requests review;
  3. Editor receives review request and forwards it to reviewer(s);
  4. Reviewers read submission, comment and make recommendations;
  5. When one or two reviewers, or the editor, recommend publication, it is made public and given a permanent address.
Blinding the review process presents challenges to the way in which the data are entered and accessed. A single-blind process will be easier to implement, but depending on how many users have the role of editor (i.e. commissioning reviews and authorising publication), this too may be difficult.
In addition, draft materials may be made available by contributors and comments can be made by members of the project.

 

References

4. More on databases, linking and myth
Close

Log in

This service is only available to members of the relevant projects, and to purchasers of the skaldic volumes published by Brepols.
This service uses cookies. By logging in you agree to the use of cookies on your browser.

Close